volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
There's an old idea of fairness that when cutting a cake between two people one person cuts and the other picks the piece they want.
This method aligns the interests of both parties, no matter how corruptible and *human* they may be.
I think it's underappreciated how often the US government design has a similar method in its checks and balances: one group can reject an official, but they don't get to choose the replacement.
See, for example, impeachment proceedings.
After all: "This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public."
--Hamilton (maybe)
But that's not factually correct.
When the Supreme Court denies a petition like this it doesn't *allow* anything. It merely declines to take a position either way on what a lower court has done.
The Court factually maintains neutrality, neither allowing nor disallowing.
The denial did not mean the law was allowed to go into effect; that is a misstatement of the factual record here.
The Supreme Court didn't overrule a lower court, and it takes a logical leap to frame that inaction as action, the declining to act as action.
That's where what you're saying is departing from the facts and going off into left field.
You're leaving out the lower court rulings which are pivotal to this timeline though.
This is a disagreement on fact, though.
I pull up the actual docket directly from the Supreme Court showing that what you're saying is wrong, factually wrong, so I don't really know why you would agree to disagree.
We have the authority in front of us showing that what you're saying is wrong on the facts.
I guess you can continue to disagree with that if you want but I don't know why you would.
The Supreme Court says that your position is incorrect. I don't know why you maintain it given such repudiation.
Again, you keep making these statements that just aren't factually correct. Your theory is just don't match reality.
You say the only thing the boss controls is the trademark, but that's wrong. You can very easily see that the boss controls source code repositories if nothing else.
So yeah, once again, you have these fantastic theories that just don't line up with reality.
You're factually wrong though.
OF COURSE there was a question that it was constitutional at the time it was passed since the whole point was asking that question!
And no, the Supreme Court didn't decide to allow the law to go into effect. It made no such decision.
Again, these are flat out matters of fact, matters of the record that we can see right there in the docket. There is no room for disagreeing about what happened any more than there is room for disagreeing about whether the sun rose this morning.
There's no equivocation on this. You are simply wrong as to what happened as per the official documentation, and it's worth pointing that out I think.
@admin it really sounds like you have no idea how Mastodon works. It is a single project that you can check out at the Mastodon development website where the boss dictates how development proceeds, contrary to your factually incorrect theories.
@Suig@mstdn.party
Well to clarify what I'm talking about, imagine holding the two thoughts simultaneously:
These vaccines are terrible!
The great leader made these wonderful vaccines!
At some point those two thoughts HAD to collide, and I was just waiting for it to happen.
But that was a decision of the Fifth Circuit, not of the Supreme Court.
(Again, as my memory and quick reading from the docket serve)
You're also begging the question here as to constitutionality as that was exactly the question before the Court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-463.html
While The Guardian and ProPublica put out their increasingly dramatic stories about webs of associates surrounding #SCOTUS sometimes I end up wondering if those reporters have undisclosed investments in red yarn and thumbtack suppliers.
It's like, their bulletin boards still have some extra room, so let's grab more yarn and add the cashier who served the driver who drove the... and on and on.
It comes across as a bit nutty.
A Scanner Darkly vibes to this one
@Suig@mstdn.party
Interesting. I've wondered if that dam would ever break among mainstream conservatives.
FWIW, a similar interesting thing I saw about a year ago was when conservatives bashing vaccines came face to face with their adoration of the guy for (as they see it) succeeding so well in making the vaccines.
I had waited years knowing that those two thoughts were in their heads, waiting for them to collide, and I was so interested when one day I saw a mainstream Republican have those thoughts collide, and he had to end up knocking Trump down a few pegs over it.
What specifically are you referring to?
As I recall and read, the Fifth Circuit refused to enjoin enforcement of the law.
YES he tells people what to do. You say he cannot, but that's easily debunked by reality--as so many of your theories seem to be--but far from can't, he *does* in reality.
To say that a person can leave the project rather than do what they're told doesn't change that they're told what to do.
Same with your ideas about cities taking over tech projects: there will be workers being ordered around by bosses either way, project managers with final say in what gets done, based on political winds in the case of government control.
This wondrous theory you have about a world without bosses is not simply unrealistic but is flat out at odds with physical reality.
It relies on us accepting claims that we can see with our own eyes to be so false.
But it seems like web browsers have that capability since I see Google doing offline stuff with their web GMail and docs interfaces.
If a developer wants such a feature, and it would have to be developed as an app or a webpage, he might develop as a webpage to be more open. It might be easier to implement that way anyway.
@z428
Yeah, everything-in-a-browser has been a longtime coming but recent development as browser tech has improved over generations, both on the frontend and backend.
Browsers have so much more capability now, and heck, so often an app is simply an embedded web browser with handcuffs.
I actually had @jwz in mind with this post of his:
https://www.jwz.org/blog/2022/11/psa-do-not-use-services-that-hate-the-internet/
Funnily enough, that I could share a link from a browser to the post illustrates his point.
@Suig@mstdn.party
Do you mean Trump? Because conservatives are also talking about the debate last night too.
I haven't looked into this before, but this might be the list of qualifications that matter, things like size of the operator and whether the operator occupies a prominent market position.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-assent
@schultzter @tezoatlipoca
Yeah, exactly. People should recognize that apps are their own form of walled gardens, or maybe they are the walls of gardens, choose your analogy.
When something can be done in a web browser, then you can access it all sorts of ways, from all different browsers. (Ideally)
But accessing via app is accepting that single interface.
Sometimes there is no real choice, and functionality just doesn't work with a browser, and that's fine. The plants in that walled garden are special. Again, choose your analogy :)
But when a browser interface can handle it, let's choose that path, not an app.
Seems like it's a pretty big difference that their instance is owned by such a giant corporation, unlike so many other instances.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
